https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383076 The tribunal held that the deputation of Japanese experts/expatriates by the holding company to the appellant did not amount to the supply of manpower service. The tribunal found that the holding company was not a manpower supply agency, and the contract of employment between the appellant and the experts indicated an employer-employee relationship, not a supply of manpower service. The demand for service tax for the period from 1 April 2012 to 1 July 2012 was deemed unjustified as the arrangement did not fall under the category of manpower supply service. Additionally, the demand for service tax for the post-negative list period was also ruled as not valid based on the existing legal provisions and precedents. en-us Fri, 28 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Jul 2019 08:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383076 The tribunal held that the deputation of Japanese experts/expatriates by the holding company to the appellant did not amount to the supply of manpower service. The tribunal found that the holding company was not a manpower supply agency, and the contract of employment between the appellant and the experts indicated an employer-employee relationship, not a supply of manpower service. The demand for service tax for the period from 1 April 2012 to 1 July 2012 was deemed unjustified as the arrangement did not fall under the category of manpower supply service. Additionally, the demand for service tax for the post-negative list period was also ruled as not valid based on the existing legal provisions and precedents. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 28 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383076